Jane Eyre (BBC)
|
List Price: Our Price: $15.19 You Save: $24.80 (62%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $10.90 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Jane Eyre (BBC)
Movie Review: Best Jane Eyre ever
Summary: 5 Stars
I love this adaptation very much - and am very glad it is now available.
Had copied it off of original PBS Broadcast a long time ago, so I am
happy to be able to see it fresh again.
Movie Review: ADMIRABLE, BUT NOT REALIZED (3 1/2 stars)
Summary: 4 Stars
I have to give this production an extra star for effort. It certainly wasn't the lame chick flick that BBC 2006 was. They did stick close to the novel and the adaptation does have it's charm... but it lacks power, nuance and maybe even emotional truth.
Before you buy or even rent, I urge you to view some of the 1973 scenes, currently on youtube. Everyone has a different idea of what good is and -- poor production values aside -- I fear some will find these performances either off point with the story, or too intellectualized by today's standards.
I'm not opposed to narration; Jane has few enough lines and Brontė's words are visceral, stunning and intructive about her heroine. But the voice overs *here,* take place during scenes with a lot of dialog. I mean what's point of accompanying dialog with a running commentary when actors can as easily fill in subtext? The only place I've seen the device used effectively is in comedies, like SCRUBS, where the split-hair-timing of the juxtaposed VO and dialog actually helps *create* the humor. However *here,* it is not used to *any* dramatic effect whatsoever.
Jayston is probably the stronger of the two and he IS endearing (especially when singing at the piano), but lacks the edge and imposing presence of the Rochester in the novel. Cusack also has her moments, but she plays nearly every scene with arched eyebrows (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) which gives her the appearance of wearing a mask. And barely seems able to conceal a condescending smirk. She HAS since acknowledged she didn't really have a handle on the role. Tho I know ardent fans will disagree.
Otherwise the writers failed to cut passages in ways that make Brontė's dialog playable (and the '83 adaptation demonstrates that *much* of it is *very* playable). So part of the problem may lie there. I do think the more dynamic '83, which presumably had the lowest budget per hour, is richer and more realized. It's equally faithful and a lot less self conscious, at least to this viewer. True they took some risks, but with few exceptions, most of them paid off.
Movie Review: A spiritually dissonant adaptation with fine acting.
Summary: 4 Stars
Some Eyre enthusiasts say that this is their favorite version. Sorcha Cusak plays a Jane heavy on the "elfin" aspects of the character, and Michael Jayston gives a really strong portrayal of Rochester. Sorcha Cusak is a fine actress, but is not at all plain, she has an unusual striking beauty, and is nearly as tall as Rochester, which makes her a bad fit for Eyre purists.
I suspect it is her personal lightness and charm which make people like this version, but this is precisely what makes her an incorrect Jane. We find that she looks very much like a blonde version of the dark haired beauty Blanche, so much so that they could be sisters, which is, of course, a miscast Jane.
This TV miniseries version looks much more like film than the 1983 version (which has the best Jane ever, Zelah Clarke), which makes for pretty viewing. Here, Michael Jayston is a much more believable Rochester than the gorgeous James Bond Rochester, Timothy Dalton. This version was very true to the dialogue of the book, but the endless over-narrations by Jane (telling us her motives and thoughts) are extremely unfaithful to the book, and are another thing that make this version very dissonant.
These 70s miniseries are very slow, but this one is exceptionally well done, and stands up much better over time than others of the same period. Conversely, we have the awful 70s hair, very fluffy and with the big bump in the back that was so much in Vogue, and even the mysterious woman in the attic has on heavy eye makeup when we see her. So many little things are so right (the best Grace Poole is in this version) , but then disappointing in so many little ways. This version is several parts shorter than the 80s version, and it suffers from it.
Overall, this is a very well done version, but if you have the patience for older TV miniseries, treat yourself to the 80s version, which is the most faithful to the book, especially by giving proper weight to the second half, which is where Bronte gets to sink her teeth into ethical and spiritual issues.
Movie Review: Good Film / Decent Acting
Summary: 4 Stars
This adaptation, which I first watched on youtube, and subsequently purchased follows the story-line pretty well. I thought the acting, especially Michael Jayston's, was quite good. (Also, I thought the support roles in this film were better played than in the 1983 adaptation.)
The picture quality in this 1973 adaptation is slightly worse than in the 1983 adaptation. Yet, the picture quality is not poor. (The picture quality reminded me of BBC's "Emma" from 1972 or BBC's "David Copperfield" from 1974.
That said:
1.
I think this adaptation is excellent. It is different than the 1983 (and slightly shorter). However, it covers most of the same scenes, keeps the original dialogue from the novel, contains excellent acting, and is worth owning if you can purchase it for a reasonable cost. (Otherwise, you know where you can watch it online.)
2.
If you haven't watched the 1981, 1983, 1996, 1997, and 2006 adaptations (all in color), I would advise starting with the 1983 (just because of the low cost). The 1983 is still loyal to the novel in its script, even if some of the acting is less perfected than the 1973. After watching the 1983, I would consider watching the 1973, especially if you thought the 1983 was not loyal enough to Charlotte Bronte's novel.
Note:
Personally, I think the 1996 and 2006 are the worst adaptations. The 1996 condenses too much; the 2006 modernizes the English language and the story-line. The 1981 adaptation is also pretty bad.
Movie Review: Quite faithful to the book
Summary: 4 Stars
This is a good adaptation of Jane Eyre which uses a lot of Charlotte Bronte's exact words and keeps the essential storyline intact throughout. Cusack is a great Jane Eyre though as others have said there is no way anyone would believe she was only 18. As in the novel she is not conventionally attractive but radiates intelligence, competence and self confidence. Michael Jayston does not really look the part of Rochester since he is not large, dark or unattractive - all attributes Bronte gave Mr. Rochester in the novel. I felt Jayston played the part as too aloof and not really very passionate. For some reason he kept reminding me of Christopher Plummer in THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The supporting players were all fine with an especially good portrayal of Mrs. Fairfax. Also this version gives enough time to St. John Rivers and his sisters to tell their stories. The Rivers family's roles are often overlooked or totally changed in JANE EYRE adaptations. One additional note I watched this shortly after viewing via download the new BBC JANE EYRE adaptation that will be shown in the US on Masterpiece Theatre in early 2007. That version is beautifully presented and has fine acting but in many ways it struck me as too modern and passionate while this 1973 rendering seems too old fashioned and cool.